| Author |
 Topic  |
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
 Posted - 27 Dec 2003 : 22:03:19
|
The "silver bullet"; true Article III judiciary is found today still in full force and effect:
“… saving to suitors, in all cases the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it, and [the district courts] shall also have exclusive original cognizance [and culpability of the United States to protect your property rights] of all seizures on land…” First Judiciary Act; chapter 20, page 77. September 24, 1789.
One can utilize government the way it was intended. Through process.
It is quite useful.
Regards,
David Merrill
_____________________________
The above posting is not a business offer. I am concerned about the paranoid condition of the Christian community, the ecclesia. Recently in the forum about the Credit River Money Decision, I found resistance to offering authenticated documents about a landmark common law case where the bank freely testified that credit is made from the “borrowers” signature. I came across people who wanted to convince me there is a huge Satanic orchestration of evil in the world and there is nothing that I or anyone else may do about that but wait for the return of the King. Futurism. I see this outlook as completely dysfunctional in today’s market.
Now the world to me, like the stock market is a reflection of conglomerated individual fear and greed. This is why Fibonacci Sequences are so prevalent in forecasting the market. Primarily the market is an amalgamation of individual decisions to buy and sell. There is a rush for profit out of the greed and with clever business suave a profit can be gained without malice. There is inherent stellionation (selling an item more than once; a/k/a fractional reserve banking) that strains the honesty of a profit margin. Over-capitalizing on a strict formal property system (sacrificing freedom for profit margin) stretches speculation into the ridiculous. In contract, thousands of buyers can own one ounce of gold for instance….
The IMF World Bank, Treasury or IRS (though the latter is assumed to be a Puerto Rican corporation of the United States, not the UN organ) mails out about $8 worth of presentments and brings in about $1000 revenue. This is process and can be learned easily by reading through the Uniform Commercial Code. Although I will explain why as we go; I never cite the UCC in any presentment, notice or judgment. But the UCC is a concise compendium of contract law, international law and summarily, the Code of Hammurabi Abram of Ur (Chaldea/Babylon) imported into Canaan.
I have been utilizing the ‘saving to suitors’ clause properly in the US district courts, invoking true Article III judiciary for years now. About 100 suitors, most of whom have gained control of the suits that once festered into nightmares, mostly from misconceptions about how to handle process (mail). Agents of a foreign principal are required to file in the district courts of the United States prior to exercising any claim against a man or woman on this land. Of course with Federal Reserve Notes as currency that means a bill collector has to take you to court? No. The same process is expedited through your (well, it’s not really yours) mailbox. By teaching people how to handle mail for the suits that it is, these people terminate nuisance law suits against their estates, nipping them in the bud.
The other day a suitor, an investment broker, took me to breakfast and showed me his year-end overall credit report he gets as some work standard by the SEC. The IRS lien was cleared from the report. He is having some problems with the State Department of Revenue telling someone managing his money that this means the State must follow suit. I advised this suitor to require the manager to acquire a formal written statement from the State and sure enough the State faxed a “PAYOFF” statement that instead of “AMOUNT DUE” at the amount line, said “Credit”. The State has paid this off but the paper looks sort of like a lien or something so the suitor is having troubles still because the manager called the State and the State said that it was still a bill. Now the manager is going to believe the telephone conversation over what the paper clearly says. So the suitor has published the release at the county clerk (see the same process?). [For now, the State is saying it assesses liabilities independent of the IRS which is not true. So as this moves forward, experience tells me the State will tell the manager to release all claim.] I have examples (sanitized a little for privacy of the suitor) of these releases from both the IRS and the State, plus a letter where the bank president ceased foreclosure upon common law process, “This is due to the opinion of the bank’s counsel that Mr. Xxxxx has followed appropriate steps objecting to the release of bank records to the IRS in this matter.”
While you may be able to extract the elements of process that you should have been using all along to prevent nuisance suits and judgments against you, I am not offering services to you readers. That is not my objective. I have never been running a business.
About 175 BC a curious doctrine came out of Israel. Just behind the mathematical/historical treatise we know as the Book of Daniel, but written over a period of about fifty years was the Book of Enoch. This book was just too inconsistent with itself (specially the names of angels over the fifty-year writing period) and with the fluidity of the other Israelite books to get canonized into the Bible. Enoch describes a compact between some angels who lust for human women and builds this mythology improperly on Genesis 6:1-8. The superstitious Jews back then, by the time of the writing of the Book of Jude, actually subscribed to this bizarre mythology; the idea that angels could even propagate with human women prior to Enoch is just abomination to Israelite theology. Longstanding commentary in both Jewish and Christian Bible interpretation holds it to be error to think the players in Genesis are anything but human - the sons of God are men of the line of Seth. The daughters of men are the women of the line of Cain. This intermarriage was forbidden and unwise - punishable by drowning.
Today when someone takes the Bible literally, they often buy into the superstitious mythology that a third of the angels rebelled against God and were cast out of heaven under Lucifer their leader. This doctrine is actually taking the Book of Enoch literally, as some of the writers of the epistles that were canonized did.
I think this has developed a dichotomy of mind found among most Christians. Many of you are say, an electrical engineer, pragmatic, methodical and systematic with principles of physics in the time/space continuum we call “reality”. But then in a compartmentalized portion of your belief sets, you subscribe to some of the most bizarre supernatural fantasies.
The Israelite concept of angels and demons is single-dimensional. That is to say, there were three messages God wanted to give to Abram, so therefore three angels. The angels have no personality. Satan is nothing more than an evil intent. A potential waiting to manifest (or not) in a human personality.
Now, why bother you with the above discourse? Because I feel that so many of you are bent on self-destruction by not using government the way it was built to be used. The Constitution is an admiralty document. The longstanding usage and customs of international law prevail. It seems that the most of you would rather just say, “The world has gone down the toilet. So I am just going to do what I need to survive until Jesus returns.”
Is that true?
Regards,
David Merrill |
Edited by - David Merrill on 28 Dec 2003 11:42:08 |
|
|
True North
Advanced Member
USA
163 Posts |
Posted - 29 Dec 2003 : 09:21:12
|
Thank you David, for saying concisely what others have been trying to learn about the processes of the Kingdom here and now.
Please continue to expound ...
TN |
 |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 29 Dec 2003 : 09:52:15
|
Dear Lewis;
Re: your private email inquiring about the 'saving to suitors' clause.
I am after some answers to my queries of the Ecclesia as (if) an eleemosynary corporation. I want more than your individual input.
I have been drafting remedy for suitors to cure for years now. Most are respectful of my time and other pursuits and keep to themselves but almost always have a friend or two who need remedy too. Getting them filed in the US Courthouses around the country helps fund my other pursuits.
I need answers about specific mechanisms in play around the Christian religion. So far I am the only man who can teach this remedy. Others can learn but nobody does the mathematics and that prevents the second order of pupils from grasping the simplicity of process. Maybe it is no more than a bunch of programming around the mailbox. But I suppose a more difficult paradigm shift around cause and effect - piercing the numero-linguistic interface (Veil) and a deeper understanding of the Abrahamic Covenant, Messianic and Tabernacle models. The new name (rebirth) as a white stone of acquittal, preparing the Bride(s) as heirs apparent in the kingdom of heaven on earth. I am looking into this and hope I will be helpful to you all in the exchange.
So please keep related communication here in the discussion forum. I think it will be much more efficient.
Thanks,
David Merrill.
P.S. Michael says he will post links to download documents (.jpeg) I am sending. I will send him page 77 of the Judiciary Act now.
|
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 29 Dec 2003 : 21:10:28
|
This treatise by Eustace Mullins is excellent. I filed my 'saving to suitors' clause in the wake of a relative of Mr. Mullins' similar case. I learned a lot from Jim.
As a sidebar: Jim mastered the Fibonacci numbers. Remember that triple-witching crash late in '97? Jim, an investment broker, sold his entire portfolio of portfolios on the eve of that crash. In his 90s at the time, he was pleased to draw his career to a close that way.
Now take these facts of history and law and move (remand) out of the Article I forum into Article III, "admiralty and maritime jurisdiction". Same Delovio v. Boit cite. Add many subsequent cases Re: The Huntress etc. showing revenue causes under the jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States in Article III judiciary.
You bring into the light the re-phrasing of Congress in the codification of the 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789. In the amendment, Congress admits it cannot change the intent of the clause. So I prefer the older reading because it adheres to two valuable points. 1) this remedy is "common law" as of 1789 - no blending equity (Bennett v. Butterworth 52 US 669) and 2) courts of competent jurisdiction. Modern usage of the clause as well as earlier apply diversity of citizenship to State citizenship (a dispute between two different State Citizens) and a State or United States citizen v. a foreign citizen. The States went bankrupt in 1933 by governor's convention leaving men and women the state; the court of competent jurisdiction.
Unless you adhere to the externalization of the problem. That the authority disappeared when the States followed FDR and the United States into corporate bankruptcy. Process shows notice ("Notice" of lien) to be the cusp in process that authorizes the notice into actuality. Usually acquiescence or improper response is what authorizes the notice. In other words, like the Bible says of the dragon, it gets its power from somewhere.... from you, men and women who do not know how to use government to protect your property.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S.
--------------------------------
Originally posted by David Merrill
The Constitution is an Admiralty document.
--------------------------------
Really? How so?
The Constitution is the pooling of separate countries international trade rights (admiralty). The intent was to avoid a scenario like:
Deleware loves to trade with Portugal. New Hampshire traded with Portugal and got into a raw deal. Now New Hampshire wants Deleware to boycott Portugal. All Portugal sees now are the United States - the District of pooled admiralty. This is also why agents of a foreign principal are required to get that judgment in the district courts of the United States before exercising any claim on a man or woman inland. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 29 Dec 2003 21:22:11 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 29 Dec 2003 : 22:53:50
|
Hello David,quote:
From your posted message on the ecclesia board:
"The Constitution is an admiralty document. The longstanding usage and customs of international law prevail."
Alrighty now. We are starting to be on the same page. This is where I am at with my thoughts and actions.
Please be so kind as to provide me with more insight into the "saving to suitors". This looks interesting and is definitely something I have not seen.
Thanks.
Regards,
Lewis |
Edited by - Lewish on 29 Dec 2003 22:57:30 |
|
|
|
Bondservant
Forum Administrator
382 Posts |
Posted - 30 Dec 2003 : 08:33:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
P.S. Michael says he will post links to download documents (.jpeg) I am sending. I will send him page 77 of the Judiciary Act now.
The 4 images submitted by David Merrill (now converted to GIF images) can be downloaded in a single 99kb ZIP file at Suitors.zip |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 30 Dec 2003 : 10:48:44
|
Dear Livefree;
You say Eustace Mullins wrote:
"... claim to common law citizenship is thought by some authorities to be compromised by Social Security..."
If you have the book, please look at endnotes and index and tell us if these "some authorities" are cited. This is rules of evidence. See? It may not be true just because Mullins believed "some authorities" enough to put it in his book. Please follow this up.
You are using Eustace Mullins' book and your own refined concepts of qua-corps to guide this conversation into the parataxic disortion more commonly known as identity crisis - the dichotomy of mind I mention. I got it the other day out of an old law dictionary about qua-corps. Introducing the term "metaphysical person". The sovereign man or woman. Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary 1901 additions calls it "PSEUDONOMANIA: A form of insanity characterized by a morbid propensity to lie." These days it is pathologic liar.
Several suitors are Doctors of psychology. One in particular, very successful in remedy [his (experienced) receptionist is awed that he actually sends paying patients away cured] met me in the federal repository for his 'remedy tour'. He introduced himself and I called him a liar. He took exception. I told him since he was unaware of his lie, he was a pathologic liar, correct? Then I taught him his name. He caught on more quickly than others because he has studied MPD (Multiple Personality Disorder) under Dr. Corydon Hammond (The Greenbaum Lecture 1991).
The UCC Redemption is caught up on the all upper case entity. This is a stumbling block. Black's fifth says, "Name: A person's "name" consists of one or more Christian or given names and one surname or family name." And we flip to, "Legal Name: Under common law consists of one Christian name and one surname..." See? "name" is legal name. That is why it is in parenthesis. Of course you are looking in a legal dictionary so what do you expect?
Whenever you put your family's name behind your true name you have formed a legal name, a new creation that is a benefit of the social compact. You sign the social compact by using the legal name. No problem. Eustace Mullins is wrong. That is the purpose of Rule E(8). Limit the assumpsit to only the ink on the contract that proper notification has been served. We, that is the men and women (what is your name?) have always had the God-given unalienable right to contract honestly with others, be it Social Security or whatever.
Lewis. Be patient. Remember I am not here picking up clients and commissions. I have an agenda. Experience tells me if I just dump it all, it would be useless to all of you. Page 77 of the Judiciary Act is available for download. But you want to be able to use the 'saving to suitors' clause; not just cite it. So pay attention to everything. Access to the common law is protected by law. When you call up this forum, re-read the 'saving to suitors' clause on the way. Let it sink in that government is still here to protect your property. Learn your name. Men and women have God-given unalienable rights. Always have... unalienable.
Miyamoto Musashi said:
Do not think dishonestly
The Way is in training
Become acquainted with every art
Learn the Ways of every occupation
Distinguish between gain and loss in worldly matters
Develop intuitive judgment and understanding for everything
Perceive those things which cannot be seen
Pay attention, even to trifles
Do nothing that is of no use
Timing in Strategy:
Regards,
David Merrill |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 30 Dec 2003 : 20:59:01
|
Dear Livefree.
I had forgotten how paranoid Jim and Eustace were.
There is no such thing as secret law.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 30 Dec 2003 : 23:29:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
Dear Livefree.
I had forgotten how paranoid Jim and Eustace were.
There is no such thing as secret law.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Laws that are not revealed are secret laws. So if you ever end up in court not understanding the charges against you, ask the judge what JURISDICTION they are operating under. You will need to know this if you are going to defend yourself. Under the Six Amendment to the Constitution it is the court's DUTY to answer. See what he says.
|
Edited by - Livefree on 30 Dec 2003 23:29:47 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 31 Dec 2003 : 01:28:04
|
Dear Livefree;
As I recall it, Eustace had already written The Rape of Justice when Jim filed his 'saving to suitors' case. That was August of 1995. Check this out with the copyright date. Jim mentioned that he spoke to Eustace about the case and 'saving to suitors' clause but I do not recall any information from Eustace or his side of the conversation with his cousin Jim.
Does Eustace mention the 'saving to suitors' clause in anything you have read by him?
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. "Secret" and "law" are mutually exclusive ultimates. That is why Congress only passes public laws.
P.P.S. That reminds me. Jim got hold of The Authority of Law by Charles Weisman. The booklet points out the Revised Statutes have no enacting clause and are not law. He drafted out the memo for a speeding ticket. The attorney in the black robe called a recess to read the memo. About twenty minutes later he returned and the transcript read (quoting Jim from my memory):
Att: "This court has no subject matter jurisdiction."
Jim: stood silent
Att: "Did you understand what I just said?"
Jim: went off into a plan B argument about Constitutional rights etc.
I pointed out that was the opportunity to leave the courtroom with the proceedings null. Jim paid the fine although the court never acquired jurisdiction.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 31 Dec 2003 09:29:24 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 31 Dec 2003 : 10:24:05
|
Livefree said:
"Sorry, but I am not a pathological liar." and continues to argue conspiracy theory about secret law and Black Nobility.
Lewis said (on the Credit River forum):
"Sorry David, I am not paranoid."
Completely subjective self-analysis of one's own sanity makes no sense to me. But I will respect you are the Senior Members and able to speak the heart of the Ecclesia.
Thank you,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
True North
Advanced Member
USA
163 Posts |
Posted - 31 Dec 2003 : 13:21:01
|
Antinomy in process requires one to broaden the mind after 'dumbed down' (John Taylor Gatto) teachings. Mr. Merill, you haven't clarified exactly what your agenda is, although quote:
I am after some answers to my queries of the Ecclesia as (if) an eleemosynary corporation
becomes the presumption. So please help me along, not altruistically but for the ecclesia, for that is this servant's goal for asking (despite previous assumptions resulting from actions). quote:
I pointed out that was the opportunity to leave the courtroom with the proceedings null. Jim paid the fine although the court never acquired jurisdiction
Jim should have come back with a motion to dismiss, yes? Easy enough for my ignorant position but the mindset and the rules get progressively more numerous and difficult to grasp.
A subject matter jurisdiction requires a demurrer or in Jim's case mentioned above, a memo to the court, but a challenge to the jurisdiction of the court requires appeal by trial de novo. What process is used to remand to an article three court? Serve instead of file you say. Serve a 'saving to suitors' notice for judicial notice to the court? With what timing?
I am not so ignorant as to believe that each suit doesn't require an individual and separate response and I am able to understand and assimilate most of this thread and the credit river thread but hypothetically speaking, if the county clerk sends me a notice of property taxes due, I would, (again hypothetically) send back a timely 'Refused for Cause' as a priest and King?
The 'Refused for cause' follows the simplicity I find in Kingdom matters although the semantics and etymology involved with the process(s) can be challenging. I am interested in learning as much of this process for as many different types of suits as you will teach and I am beginning to grasp the immensity of the follow up to this process if challenged.
Am I following your lead on the refusal for cause process served on the one disrupting the trust?
TN |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 31 Dec 2003 : 14:31:24
|
Greetings In His name, Yahshua,
For those whom still refuse to believe that that which is crooked cannot be made straight, the following is just a recent example(year 1949):
http://www.ablelegalforms.com/40so2d902.htm
Dios En Vosotros,
Manuel
PS Take notice of how these impostors X'd the so-called ballot, instead of signing with their "names," if it even meant de facto execution on its face. |
Edited by - Manuel on 31 Dec 2003 17:50:04 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 31 Dec 2003 : 18:29:37
|
Dear Readers;
I read the entire page carefully and I think that Livefree is, with Eustace Mullins for authority, arguing my point that agents of a foreign principal are required to file in the district courts of the United States (and win a judgment) before they have the authority to exercise their claim against a man or woman on this land. I missed this because it is so obviously so to me.
First understand that there are many good points, based in fact in The Rape of Justice. But now I remember how paranoid Eustace Mullins was, I can appreciate that you stop quoting him here. He is not in authority because he was in my opinion mentally ill. You cannot convince me this process fails because it is working. It always has been (at least since 1789). I am pleased that I just drafted remedy for a man who will soon file in Missoula, Montana; a new ‘saving to suitors’ State. It is great to get these court clerks up to speed in the U.S. Courthouses.
The IRS cite (Title 26 §6323) was cited on the back of the Notice of Lien stipulating the requirement (the cite below from an Admiralty counterclaim [libel of review]) until I used that in my first ‘saving to suitors’ case. [Filed December 17, 1995 triggering the 31 Day Government Shutdown - corporate restructure.] If you get to the county clerk within a couple weeks of filing you can get the clerk to copy the backside of the original Notice. They can certify the front and that the reverse is the backside of the front. So I was citing the IRS requirement that they had informed the legal name of with the Notice.
“This fact of protocol - filing a claim in district court according to international law - is beyond dispute and extends into antiquity: "Meanwhile those who seized wreck ashore without a grant from the Crown did so at their peril." Select Pleas in the Court of Admiralty, Volume II, A.D. 1547-1602; Introduction - Prohibitions, Note as to the early Law of Wreck, Selden Society, p. xl, 1897. Even the IRS recognizes the protocol:
"Place for filing notice; form. Place for filing. The notice referred to in subsection (a) shall be filed -- with the clerk of the district court. In the office of the clerk of the United States district court for the judicial district in which the property subject to the lien is situated..." Title 26 U.S.C. §6323.”
But I saw a Notice of Lien recently and the cite has been removed from the back. Can you believe that?
I think Livefree is incredulous because of the words "man or woman" on this land. I tried to get into some pretty advanced stuff and it just sounds like accusations.
Regards,
David Merrill
P.S. Jim was 91 at the time. Probably should not have been driving to the courthouse. But after I brought up the point he requested the transcript and was going to nullify the judgment. Can you believe the transcriber found a screeching noise at that part of the proceeding and could not understand what was being said on the audio tape?
That is really the only reason Jim paid up. But in his defense we all have been so stupid.
P.P.S. True North; You are already in remedy. You can cure out a true default judgment and file it at the county clerk if you want something to show an employer or banker who is considering a Notice to divert funds. The purpose of the case jacket is evidence repository for your refusals for cause in the cognizance of the United States. Read the 'saving to suitors' clause again. Confidence is competence. You know you are a priest and king but it takes a few rounds with the world to see how powerful that really can be.
P.P.P.S. Jim should have collected his things from the podium and walked out of the courthouse upon the admission jurisdiction did not exist. He was pretty hard on himself when he found the tape was inaudible. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 31 Dec 2003 18:41:35 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 31 Dec 2003 : 21:24:37
|
I will not argue. I think Dan Meador wrote a treatise on the Constitution being admiralty called "Where's the Water?" But I have not read it.
The 'saving to suitors' process is not mine. It is yours. The law is not mine. Do you want it? In a digestable form?
Now I am going to toss something out there and see how it sticks. Some mathematics. Don’t get discouraged or scared if this makes no sense to you. I am hoping to some of you, this is already on your hearts.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SavingstoSuitor/files/; click "216.JPEG"
What you are looking at is the 216 digit (Angelic) Name of God derived from Exodus 14:19-21. Darren Aronofsky produced his debut (1999 Sundance Film Festival winner) flick dirt cheap, black and white titled “Pi - faith in chaos” and there are a few scenes about this. If you have it on DVD pause when Saul leaves the encrypted Name on the Go board. Pause on Saul’s notes. What I thought I saw here in the notes when I paused a VHS video tape was the same paleo-Hebrew you see above. I was really thrilled that Aronofsky knew. Earlier in the flick, modern Hebrew had failed to produce results. But then I paused a DVD and found out I was looking at numbers, just normal numbers in Saul’s notes.
Anyway, the Hebrew alphabet has not just changed style from the Sumarian Ostraca font of David’s time (1000 BC), it has changed numerically. Originally the alphabet is modulo 500 and lately the alphabet is modulo 1000. This is probably a westernization to accommodate number lines. The rabbis did this by adding five finals. These are repeat letters but when they are used at the end of a word they equate to the 500, 600 … 900. See? The next increment is 1000 so I call it “modulo 1000” like in cryptological mathematics.
The number line of the alphabet is not linear either. It goes Aleph (see Psalm 119) = 1; Beth = 2... Teth = 9; Yod = 10; Caph = 20; Lamed = 30... Tzaddi = 90; Koph = 100; Resh = 200; Shin = 300; Tav = 400. Logarithmic; exponential. Not linear like the Newtonian calculus and mechanics. This is the mathematics of life. The Fibonacci Sequence and the five cube sum number locks. [1, 153, 370, 371, 407] The key is found at I Samuel 17:40 and John 21:11 among other clues (see footnote). But the last letter is Tav=400 and the next increment is 500 so ‘modulo 500‘; not modulo 1000 is the logarithmic number line of the Bible. The mathematics of life.
The lower primes work much more functionally in prior knowledge psychometrics. Forecasting the stock market works much better with the Fibonacci numbers. The Fibonacci Sequence is exponential on a 61.55% ration. 0+1=1;1+1=2;2+1=3;3+2=5;5+3=8;8+5=13... The ratio of the addends is 61.55%. Five. If you go from the point of a pentagram to the intersection, that is 61.55%. This ration is found throughout nature from cellular biology to the cosmic precedence (“wobble” of the North Star; rotates 1º every 72 years). 360º / 5 = 72. The Vitruvian Man drawn by Leonardo da Vinci. Like God’s signature throughout life. The 216 digit name above is 72 x 3 = 216 and is derived because these three verses contain 72 letters each (see footnote 2). It is the Seventy-two Fold Name spoken by the cohen gadol (high priest) over the congregation from the holiest place on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement; Leviticus 23) for the forgiveness of the ecclesia.
Atonement, repentence and the rebirth. The clean white bride and the new name (of the man or woman; not the artifice) represented like a white stone of acquittal. Jurists of old played with a (smooth) black and a white stone in their hands while they listened to the evidence. Then they put one or the other into the hat to determine conviction or acquittal. This is why I am putting this out there.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SavingstoSuitor/files/; click "72-Fold Name.JPEG"
If you want me off the mathematics, simply refrain from commenting about this Reply. That will probably work fine. Maybe I will open a new topic if some of you are piqued.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Footnote: The U.S. Courthouse has the bill of rights posted on a bronze placard and at the Tenth Amendment about State’s rights is a (right; pointing up) pentagram. See the Stars and Stripes.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SavingstoSuitor/files/; click "72-weights.JPEG"
Footnote 2: After optimizing the resonance of the Table of Relative Weights for naturally occurring isotopes, I discovered the value shift reflected the number seventy-two. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 07 Jan 2004 18:45:50 |
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 31 Dec 2003 : 22:38:10
|
David Merrill wrote: quote:
I will not argue. I think Dan Meador wrote a treatise on the Constitution being admiralty called "Where's the Water?" But I have not read it.
Maybe Dan Meador's knowledge of the Constitution didn't work for him, but Andrew Melechinsky, (now deceased) founder of the Constitutional Revival movement in Connecticut, used to picket court houses and law schools bearing signs such as, "Lawyers, Judges and Politicians Are Scum", and "The Court System is Utterly Corrupt". One does not do this sort of thing without consequences. Melenchinsky was thrown into jail more than sixty times, but his vast knowledge of Constituional procedures always secured his release. The Constitution seemed worked for him.quote:
If you insult me I will go away.
Hmmm.quote:
The 'saving to suitors' process is not mine. It is yours. The law is not mine. Do you want it? In a digestable form?
Yes, I want it. In a digestable form. Please post it or send it via my email. Thank you in advance. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 31 Dec 2003 : 23:23:03
|
True North said:
“Am I following your lead on the refusal for cause process served on the one disrupting the trust?”
This turned me around. I thought I had acquired testimony representative of the Ecclesia and then I read your reply. “…the one disrupting the trust?” I wonder if you said that by accident or you know what you said.
Article VI of the Constitution opens the gates for what we see today (see footnote). The Constitution as an admiralty document, for instance is both from the creation of public trusts and necessity (March 28, 1861). For instance I drafted remedy for an Internet vitamin distributor in eastern Washington. He was getting ripped off blind by the trustee he hired, as a tax shelter he put the company into a trust. Well, in 2000 the employees petitioned to have the trustee removed in fear of their jobs. It didn’t take me long to convince the owner that that was when the trust was dissolved. Actually before but at least he had a petition to prove there was not trust. Trust as a verb and a noun. It is an interesting word, trust.
I got a call a few minutes ago from a suitor who refused for cause a writ of restitution on his home. One of those UCC Redemption victims. The process server was serving the public trustee and she was at the counter. The server asked for so-and-so but she responded that so-and-so was not in today. The server said, “I know you because I have personally served papers on you before. So you can either take these papers or you are served by refusal.” She took the papers.
Now there will be a notation on the return of service saying the trustee lied. Wonderful! She cannot be a trustee if she lies. A trustee in orange coveralls is ordered back on the bus and stays in his cell if the guard smells anything dishonest or untrustworthy.
So get this! The suitor will file the return of service at the county clerk and then have a certified copy served on the attorney in the black robe in position to sign the writ and tender it to the sheriff. Now he has proof the Public Trustee is not, her refusal of the BOE, bond or whatever UCC instrument was tendered is null and void. He would probably think twice about putting his signature to try and say it was never properly refused for cause when the return of service was on the refusal for cause.
“What process is used to remand to an article three court? Serve instead of file you say. Serve a 'saving to suitors' notice for judicial notice to the court? With what timing?”
I tell the suitor at filing, when the judge is assigned, ask the clerk, “Is this an Article III judge?” The clerk will invariably say, “Yes.” Now a moment later we call the State Supreme Court Attorney Register and check out the number and status. If “active” then the court is recused because the clerk lied. Fine. If “inactive” then there is a possibility the man (none of the women federal judges are “inactive” attorneys; I have theories but your guess is as good as mine) will risk his career, pension and retirement bonus on the suitors property rights and some lost American ideal. But I have not seen it yet. The best I hope for is silence while the suit comes to cure in true default judgment.
Once while waiting for a suitor I passed a man in the hall of the Qwest building. Another man addressed him as “judge” and complimented him on a recent white paper. I was loading my Goofey PEZ dispenser so this man caught up with me at the revolving door. I asked, “Are you an Article III judge?” He chuckled, “Yeah, hardly ever.” Then he realized what a rear question it was and our eyes caught. We instinctively shook hands and it was time to give my name, but I smiled. We pushed through the outer doors and in a thoughtful tone this time he said, “Very seldom. But I am beginning to wonder about that.” He crossed the street into the Tenth Circuit building so I figure he is one of the circuit court justices.
“Serve a 'saving to suitors' notice for judicial notice to the court? With what timing?”
Good to see you are thinking about timing. Maybe too many things at once. Serve instead of file is for a State or County nuisance case. Like the suitor’s refusal on the writ of restitution - he is having the process server serve it on the attorney, not file it in the case. You do not want to recognize the attorney in the black robe as a judge. Your papers will be regarded a pleading or motion.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Footnote: I have an article titled “The Myth of the Ages” I think Jim clipped it from the American’s Bulletin for me. It has some paranoid delirium mixed in but really pins the admiralty angle of the Constitution right.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 01 Jan 2004 01:25:06 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 31 Dec 2003 : 23:26:02
|
Hello David,
I wondered for years how the Babylonians came up with 360 degrees in a circle. Then one day it hit me!
1*1*1*1*2*2*2*3*3*5=360.
Drats, now what do I do with that bit of info?
Lewis |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 31 Dec 2003 : 23:42:39
|
"Yes, I want it. In a digestable form. Please post it or send it via my email. Thank you in advance."
Yes Livefree. That is what I am doing on this topic forum. You and Lewis pay attention. I feel problem identification may be the solution. Now that's efficient engineering but I do not feel it is too much to hope that by calling yourselves Ecclesia, this forum is fraught with rightful heirs.
Now that I think and see process for what it is, it is a little boggling to me that you do not. Me trying to be patient is interpreted by so many of you as arrogance. So I am hoping that when I isolate the problem. That will loose the logjam.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 31 Dec 2003 : 23:50:12
|
*1*1*1*2*2*2*3*3*5=360.
I'm not sure I get it, specially the '1's. But it seems familiar.
What to do with it? I usually wait for patterns and consistencies to develop. Then if that happens maybe a theory? Then proving the theory, a useful tool.
Thanks, I am going to try to remember where I saw this before. My presumption has always been related to days in the solar year.
David Merrill.
[I was half asleep when "Keely"; I think its John Keely, kind of a non-famous Tesla of the last century. He or his modern followers use this notation breaking down octaves in harmonics. Is that it?] |
Edited by - David Merrill on 01 Jan 2004 01:17:54 |
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jan 2004 : 00:21:42
|
David Merrill wrote: quote:
Footnote: I have an article titled “The Myth of the Ages” I think Jim clipped it from the American’s Bulletin for me. It has some paranoid delirium mixed in but really pins the admiralty angle of the Constitution right.
I read that too and I didn't pick up any paranoid delirium. I wonder why? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
"saving to suitors" clause of 1789
Topic Locked
